How did a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus Christ) end up to be "son" of God?

[Carcano]

Most interesting indeed is the picture which emerges from the Gnostics - many of whom regard Paul as the founding Gnostic.

Its not surprising that a 2-3rd century Christian cult would declare that all the major figures of Christian history were actually on their side.

The fact is, Paul expounds NONE of the central beliefs of Gnosticism, and indeed, these principles had not yet even been conceived during his lifetime.

Wrong.
Early Christians saw Christ as a divine being, not a historical person.

Most early Christians saw Jesus as BOTH divine AND human. Exactly HOW he could be both is among the disputes the first council of Nicea was held to resolve.

 

[Iasion]

It has nothing to do with bringing the count down, it has to do with the fact that Paul wrote prior to Mark, or around same time...so its not surprising that this gospel wouldnt be mentioned.

Do you have your eyes closed again?
Of course Paul never mentioned the Gospel - duh.

That's not my point at all - please pay attention :

The earliest Christian writers make no clear mention of any historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The first 30 books or so make NO clear mention of any such historical figure.

But later, from early-mid 2nd century we start to see the Gospels, and the myths about Jesus, growing and changing.

Then, in mid 2nd century the Gospels appear, and after that every Christian writer repeats endless details.

That's the issue - the EARLIEST Christians - Paul, James, etc, should know the MOST about Jesus. THEY should be the source for the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

But they say NOTHING about any such historical figure - the people who should have known Jesus don't even mention his life details.

The Christian record has NO historical Jesus of Nazareth until about a century after the alleged facts.

Clear evidence it's all myth.

And even if that wasnt the case, it certainly wouldnt prove that the gospel of Mark didnt exist.

I never said it didn't.
Please open your eyes.

I said that no Christian writer shows any knowledge of the Gospels, OR the life of Jesus, until early-mid 2nd century.

A plain and simple FACT which you can check.

But so far, you have just kept your eyes closed to the facts I cite.

So without the writings of Paul there are very few non-gospel texts included on your chart.

Why do you want to exclude the writings of Paul?
He is the EARLIEST writer.
He should know the MOST about Jesus.

But,
what do we see?

The exact OPPOSITE -

Paul mentions NOTHING clearly about the life of Jesus - no Mary, no birth stories, no healings, no miracles, no speeches, no TRIAL ! no empty tomb !!

It could not be more obvious - Paul, like the other TWENTY or so books - have NO KNOWLEDGE of any historical Jesus.

SO, let's count :

~7 letters of Paul
~5 letters of Pseudo Paul
~ TWENTY other documents.

That's about TWENTY non-Pauline documents which you call "very few".

In total a list of THIRTY TWO documents - and you wave them all away with silly comments.

But you don't bother to address the arguments at all.


Iasion

Its not surprising that a 2-3rd century Christian cult would declare that all the major figures of Christian history were actually on their side.

Yes,
it's not surprising that the literalists would declare Paul on their side.

Oh, you meant the Gnostics?

That's the thing - BOTH sides declared Paul their founder in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

The Gnostics were some of the earliest Christians.
Paul was an early Gnostic - sure, the later Gnostics develped Paul's ideas just as the literalists did.

Both sides did exactly the same at about the same period - they declared Paul their founder and expanded on his writings.

But when we read Paul we see Gnostic themes, and NOTHING about a historical Jesus.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Paul-Gnostic.html

Of course, you ignored the evidence I cited about the Gnostic Paul.

All you do is preach Carcano, I look forward to you actually addressing my points one day.


Iasion

Most early Christians saw Jesus as BOTH divine AND human.

More preaching.
But no evidence.
And completely ignoring the evidence I posted above.

Which early Christian writing clearly describes details of a historical human Jesus of Nazareth?

Hmm?

There are none until early-mid 2nd century.

The earliest writers - who should know the MOST about such details - say NOTHING.

The life of Jesus of Nazareth was unknown to Christians at large until early-mid 2nd century.

Clear evidence it's a myth.


Iasion

 

[rjr6]

Iasion

You seem really well-read on the subject of Jesus and whether he existed in the flesh. Not to get personal, but you claim that you did not say you are atheist. So what do you believe? Is Jesus, in your mind according to knowledge you have gained, some type of conspiracy? Or are you saying we don't understand the true biblical nature of Jesus?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You just preach for your side, but ignore all the evidence that shows you are wrong.

*************
M*W: Yes, Iasion, that's exactly what they do.

 

[Woody]

Lots of great literary heroes prior to Jesus were born of virgins. Krishna, Mithras, Quetzalcoatl, Dionysus, Hertha, etc.

It makes sense that, if you're going to create a hero myth, you want to use familiar and accepted motifs.

No new information here. So , if your point means anything, why didn't someone make your point 2000 years ago, using the same information you have today?

 

[Iasion]

No new information here. So , if your point means anything, why didn't someone make your point 2000 years ago, using the same information you have today?

They did exactly that.

Celsus specifically criticised the Gospels as FICTION based on MYTH.

He explicitly said the virgin birth story was lifted from myth :

"What absurdity. Clearly the Christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in FABRICATING the story of Jesus' virgin birth."
(Celsus. The True Doctine. c. 178CE)

In the very period when the Gospels came to prominance, Celsus pointed out the virgin birth story was lifted from prior myths.

Later, so did Julian (not Justin, sorry) - he claimed the Gospels were made up.

So too did Porphyry who said the evangelists were "inventors, not historians".

Thus we see that early sceptics DID criticise the Gospels as myths from the earliest times.

We even see some Christian writings which disparage "fables and genealogies" - showing even some Christians knew it was all myth.

Iasion

Greetings,

Iasion
You seem really well-read on the subject of Jesus and whether he existed in the flesh. Not to get personal, but you claim that you did not say you are atheist. So what do you believe? Is Jesus, in your mind according to knowledge you have gained, some type of conspiracy?

Well, I explained in some detail above.

No, there was no conspiracy.

Iesous Christos developed from earlier ideas into a spiritual entity in Paul's mind - the son-of-god - a higher being.

That higher being somehow also ensouls us.

Christ = soul
cross = body
crucify = incarnate physically
raise = to rise above the physical (OOBE or death)

Then,
the author of Mark took Paul's ideas and expanded it into a story of how an enlightened man might be - Jesus Christ.

G.Mark is an amazing work of religious literature - it combines the spiritual themes of the day into a grand new myth.

It was so influential that it was copied and expanded.

Finally, a good century after the alleged events - when the Temple was long destroyed, the Jews dispersed and/or killed, Jerusalem razed and Judea erased from the map.

THEN - people started mistakenly believing Jesus was historical. (Some may have realised he was not but kept quiet for political reasons.)

The argument raged through the 2nd century.

Finally, the literalists won, and burned the books of their opponents.

From that time, only the literalist view was allowed. For over a millenia everyone HAD to believe in Jesus on risk of death - no surprise they (mostly) all did.

Or are you saying we don't understand the true biblical nature of Jesus?

What does that mean?


Iasion

 

[rjr6]

The original Greek word is actually 'tekton' which means builder.

Its only been translated as 'carpenter', but he could have just as easily been a stone worker.

thanks

 

[Woody]

They did exactly that.

Celsus specifically criticised the Gospels as FICTION based on MYTH.

He explicitly said the virgin birth story was lifted from myth :

"What absurdity. Clearly the Christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in FABRICATING the story of Jesus' virgin birth."
(Celsus. The True Doctine. c. 178CE)

In the very period when the Gospels came to prominance, Celsus pointed out the virgin birth story was lifted from prior myths.

I guess his version didn't take. He wasn't the first either. The pharisees were the first to call Jesus a liar as recorded in the bible.

Later, so did Justin - he claimed the Gospels were made up.

Not Justin Martyr. He calimed the gospels were real and it cost him his life. What did it cost your "Justin" to deny the gospel accounts?

So too did Porphyry who said the evangelists were "inventors, not historians".

Again, what did it cost Porphyry to deny the gospel accounts? Perhaps you should read the roman decrees against the christian faith.

Thus we see that early sceptics DID criticise the Gospels as myths from the earliest times.

There always have been and always will be skeptics. What's new? They failed, the roman government failed, the atheists failed, the jewish leaders failed, and now you have to live with us Christians. Nobody is changing the bible.

We even see some Christian writings which disparage "fables and genealogies" - showing even some Christians knew it was all myth.

Iasion

They just died for it that's all. I think the Jesus myth thing is rather kookie. It's a small minority opinion held by a group of atheistic revisionists.

 

[Iasion]

I guess his version didn't take. He wasn't the first either. The pharisees were the first to call Jesus a liar as recorded in the bible.

I showed your claim was false - you ignore that and just preach blithely on ...

Not Justin Martyr. He calimed the gospels were real and it cost him his life. What did it cost your "Justin" to deny the gospel accounts?

No, not Justin Martyr.
I mistyped for Julian, whoops.

Anyway,
people die for false beliefs all the time -

The Heaven's Gate cult did.
Therefore according to your argument, they were right - there was a spaceship waiting to collect their souls hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet.

Suicide bombers die for their beliefs.
So what?

The Cathars died for their beliefs, rather than the Church's.
Therefore according to your argument, they were right and the Church was wrong.

This is a nonsense argument - people die for false beliefs all the time - it means NOTHING.

So,
Christians have myths that some earlier Christians died for their beliefs - so what?

Even if the myths are true - so what?

They just died for it that's all.

So what?

I think the Jesus myth thing is rather kookie.

Of course you do.
Because your a faithful believer.

But you can't produce any EVIDENCE for your faithful beliefs.

It's a small minority opinion held by a group of atheistic revisionists.

(Notice the childish NAME-CALLING. To a faithful believer, everyone who disagrees with their faith is an "atheist", which is a dirty word to them. I am not an athiest.)

Nonsense.

Once the Church lost it's power to murder anyone who disagreed with them, MANY authors have criticised the historicity of the Gospels :

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768).1778, On the Intention of Jesus and His Teaching. Enlightenment thinker and professor of Oriental languages at the Hamburg Gymnasium, his extensive writings – published after his death – rejected 'revealed religion' and argued for a naturalistic deism. Reimarus charged the gospel writers with conscious fraud and innumerable contradictions.

Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) (1694-1778) The most influential figure of the Enlightenment was educated at a Jesuit college yet concluded, "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world ... The true God cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on a gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough." Imprisoned, exiled, his works banned and burned, Voltaire's great popularity in revolutionary France assured him a final resting place in the Pantheon in Paris. Religious extremists stole his remains and dumped them in a garbage heap.

Charles François Dupuis, 1794, Origine de tous les Cultes ou La Religion universelle. Astral-mythical interpretation of Christianity (and all religion). “A great error is more easily propagated, than a great truth, because it is easier to believe, than to reason, and because people prefer the marvels of romances to the simplicity of history.” Dupuis destroyed most of his own work because of the violent reaction it provoked.

Count Volney, 1787, Les Ruines; ou, Méditation sur les révolutions des empires (Ruins of Empires). Napoleonic investigator saw for himself evidence of Egyptian precursors of Christianity.

Edward Evanson, 1792, The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence of their Respective Authenticity. English rationalist challenged apostolic authorship of the 4th Gospel and denounced several Pauline epistles as spurious.

Thomas Paine, 1795, The Age of Reason. Pamphleteer who made the first call for American independence (Common Sense, 1776; Rights of Man, 1791) Paine poured savage ridicule on the contradictions and atrocities of the Bible. Like many American revolutionaries Paine was a deist:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of ... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." – The Age of Reason.

Robert Taylor, 1828, Syntagma Of The Evidences Of The Christian Religion; 1829, Diegesis. Taylor was imprisoned for declaring mythical origins for Christianity. "The earliest Christians meant the words to be nothing more than a personification of the principle of reason, of goodness, or that principle, be it what it may, which may most benefit mankind in the passage through life.”

Godfrey Higgins, 1836, Anacalypsis – An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis; or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions. English pioneer of archaeology and freemason.

Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics. 1877, Christus und die Caesaren. Der Hervorgang des Christentums aus dem romischen Griechentum. The original iconoclast. Bauer contested the authenticity of all the Pauline epistles (in which he saw the influence of Stoic thinkers like Seneca) and Philo's role in emergent Christianity. Bauer rejected the historicity of Jesus himself. "Everything that is known of Jesus belongs to the world of imagination." As a result in 1842 Bauer was ridiculed and removed from his professorship of New Testament theology at Tübingen.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841, Essays. One time Trinitarian Christian and former Unitarian minister held Jesus to be a "true prophet" but that organised Christianity was an "eastern monarchy".

"Our Sunday-schools, and churches, and pauper-societies are yokes to the neck."

Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled. “Reigning opinion, however ill-founded and absurd, is always queen of the nations.”

Ferdinand Christian Baur, 1845, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. German scholar who identified as "inauthentic" not only the pastoral epistles, but also Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon and Philippians (leaving only the four main Pauline epistles regarded as genuine). Baur was the founder of the so-called "Tübingen School."

David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Lutheran vicar-turned-scholar skilfully exposed gospel miracles as myth and in the process reduced Jesus to a man. It cost him his career.

Ernest Renan, 1863, Das Leben Jesu. Trained as a Catholic priest, Renan wrote a romanticised biography of the godman which was influenced by the German critics. It cost him his job.

Robert Ingersoll, 1872, The Gods. Illinois orator extraordinaire, his speeches savaged the Christian religion. "It has always seemed to me that a being coming from another world, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should at least have verified that message by his own signature. Is it not wonderful that not one word was written by Christ?"

Allard Pierson, 1879, De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten. Theologian, art and literature historian who identified The Sermon on the Mount as a collection of aphorisms from Jewish Wisdom literature.The publication of Pierson's Bergrede was the beginning of Dutch Radical Criticism. Not just the authenticity of all the Pauline epistles but the historical existence of Jesus himself was called into question.

Bronson C. Keeler, 1881, A Short History of the Bible. A classic exposé of Christian fraud.

Abraham Dirk Loman, 1882, "Quaestiones Paulinae," in Theologisch Tijdschrift. Professor of theology at Amsterdam who said all the epistles date from the 2nd century. Loman explained Christianity as a fusion of Jewish and Roman-Hellenic thinking. When he went blind Loman said his blindness gave him insight into the dark history of the church!

Thomas William Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions. Outdated but a classic revelation of pagan antecedents of biblical myths and miracles.

Samuel Adrianus Naber, 1886, Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt. Classicist who saw Greek myths hidden within Christian scripture.

Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ. 1907, Ancient Egypt-The Light of the World. Another classic from an early nemesis of the priesthood.

Edwin Johnson, 1887, Antiqua mater. A Study of Christian Origins. English radical theologian identified the early Christians as the Chrestiani, followers of a good (Chrestus) God who had expropriating the myth of Dionysos Eleutherios ("Dionysos the Emancipator"), to produce a self-sacrificing Godman. Denounced the twelve apostles as complete fabrication.

Rudolf Steck, 1888, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den Paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Radical Swiss scholar branded all the Pauline epistles as fakes.

Franz Hartman, 1889, The Life of Johoshua: The Prophet of Nazareth.

Willem Christiaan van Manen, 1896, Paulus. Professor at Leiden and most famous of the Dutch Radicals, a churchman who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. After resisting the argument for many years van Manen concluded none of the Pauline epistles were genuine and that Acts was dependent on the works of Josephus.

Joseph McCabe, 1897, Why I Left the Church. 1907, The Bible in Europe: an Inquiry into the Contribution of the Christian Religion to Civilization. 1914, The Sources of the Morality of the Gospels. Franciscan monk-turned-evangelical atheist. McCabe, a prolific writer, shredded many parts of the Christ legend – "There is no "figure of Jesus" in the Gospels. There are a dozen figures" – but he continued to allow the possibility for an historical founder, nonetheless.

Albert Schweitzer.1901, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. 1906, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The famous German theologian and missionary (35 years in the Cameroons) ridiculed the humanitarian Jesus of the liberals and at the same time had the courage to recognize the work of the Dutch Radicals. His own pessimistic conclusion was that the superhero had been an apocalyptic fanatic and that Jesus died a disappointed man. Famously said those looking for an historical Jesus merely found a reflection of themselves.

Wilhelm Wrede, 1901, The Messianic Secret. Wrede demonstrated how, in Mark’s gospel, a false history was shaped by early Christian belief.

George Robert Stowe Mead, 1903, Did Jesus Live 100 BC? A discussion of the Jewish Jeschu stories which moves Jesus back to an earlier time.

Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity. Declared Jesus a myth.

William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus. 1911, Die urchristliche Lehre des reingöttlichen Jesus. Argues for origins in a pre-Christian Jesus cult on the island of Cyprus.

Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity. Another radical German scholar who identified Christianity as a psychosis. Christ was essentially the transcendental principle of the Christian community which aimed at apocalyptic social reform.

Gerardus Bolland, 1907, De Evangelische Jozua. Philosopher at Leiden identified the origin of Christianity in an earlier Jewish Gnosticism. The New Testament superstar is the Old Testament 'son of Nun', the follower renamed Jesus by Moses. The virgin is nothing but a symbol for the people of Israel. From Alexandria the "Netzerim" took their gospel to Palestine.


In 1907 Pope Pius X condemned the Modernists who were "working within the framework of the Church". An anti-Modernist oath was introduced in 1910.


Prosper Alfaric (1886-1955) French Professor of Theology, shaken by the stance of Pius X, renounced his faith and left the church in 1909 to work for the cause of rationalism.

Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth? Erstwhile Presbyterian Minister who saw through the fabrication.

Karl Kautsky, 1909, The Foundations of Christianity. Early socialist interpreted Christianity in terms of class struggle.

Arthur Drews, 1910, Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth). 1910, Die Petruslegende (The Legend of St Peter). 1924, Die Entstehung des Christentums aus dem Gnostizismus (The Emergence of Christianity from Gnosticism). Eminent philosopher was Germany's greatest exponent of the contention that Christ is a myth. The gospels historized a pre-existing mystical Jesus whose character was drawn from the prophets and Jewish wisdom literature. The Passion was to be found in the speculations of Plato.

John E. Remsburg, 1909, The Christ: A critical review and analysis of the evidences of His existence. Gospels rife with contradictions. Doubtful that Jesus existed and a supernatural Christ is certainly Christian dogma.

John Robertson, 1910, Christianity and Mythology. 1911, Pagan Christs. Studies in Comparative Hierology. 1917, The Jesus Problem. Robertson drew attention to the universality of many elements of the Jesus' storyline and to pre-Christian crucifixion rituals in the ancient world. Identified the original Jesus/Joshua with an ancient Ephraimite deity in the form of a lamb.

Alexander Hislop, 1916, The Two Babylons. Exhaustive exposure of the pagan rituals and paraphernalia of Roman Catholicism.

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, 1912, Radical Views about the New Testament. 1918, Voorchristelijk Christendom. De vorbereiding van het Evangelie in de Hellenistische wereld. Theologian and last of the Dutch radicals to hold a university professorship.

Edward Carpenter, 1920, Pagan and Christian Creeds. Elaborated the pagan origins of Christianity.

Rudolf Bultmann, 1921, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 1941, Neues Testament und Mythologie. Lutheran theologian and professor at Marburg University Bultman was the exponent of 'form criticism' and did much to demythologise the gospels. He identified the narratives of Jesus as theology served up in the language of myth. Bultmann observed that the New Testament was not the story of Jesus but a record of early Christian belief. He argued that the search for an historical Jesus was fruitless: "We can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus." (Jesus and the Word, Cool

James Frazer, 1922, The Golden Bough. Anthropological interpretation of man's progress from magic, through religion to science. Christianity a cultural phenomenon.

P. L. Couchoud, 1924, Le mystère de Jesus.1939, The Creation of Christ. Couchoud espoused an historical Peter rather than an historical Jesus and argued that the Passion was modelled on the death of Stephen.

Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth. Identified the Revelation of St John as the earliest part of the New Testament.

Henri Delafosse, 1927, Les Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche. 1928, "Les e'crits de Saint Paul," in Christianisme. Epistles of Ignatius denounced as late forgeries.

Joseph Wheless, 1926, Is It God's Word? An Exposition of the Fables and Mythology of the Bible and the Fallacies of Theology. 1930, Forgery in Christianity. American attorney, raised in the Bible Belt, shredded the biblical fantasy.

L. Gordon Rylands, 1927, The Evolution of Christianity.1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?

Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus.

John J. Jackson, 1938, Christianity Before Christ, Drew attention to the Egyptian precedents of Christian belief.

Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory? 1970, Rebirth for Christianity. Jesus was never a person, but a symbol of the divine soul in every human being.

Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth? Mythical nature of Jesus and a summary of the ongoing debate between mythicists and historicizers. Mythic-only position is continuous tradition, not novel. Pagan origins of Christ.

Georges Las Vergnas, 1956, Pourquoi j'ai quitté l'Eglise romaine Besançon.

Georges Ory, 1961, An Analysis of Christian Origins.

Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ.

John Allegro, 1970, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. 1979, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. Jesus was nothing other than a magic mushroom and his life an allegorical interpretation of a drug-induced state. Not jail for Allegro – but professional ruin.

George Albert Wells, 1975, Did Jesus Exist? 1988, The Historical Evidence for Jesus. 1996, The Jesus Legend. 1998, Jesus Myth. 2004, Can We Trust the New Testament? Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony. Christianity a growth from Jewish Wisdom literature. Later books concede possible influence of a real preacher.

Max Rieser, 1979, The True Founder of Christianity and the Hellenistic Philosophy. Christianity started by Jews of the Diaspora and then retroactively set in pre-70 Palestine. Christianity arrived last, not first, in Palestine – that's why Christian archeological finds appear in Rome but not in Judea until the 4th century.

Abelard Reuchlin, 1979, The True Authorship of the New Testament. Conspiracy theory par excellence: Roman aristocrat Arius Calpurnius Piso (aka "Flavius Josephus") conspired to gain control of the Roman Empire by forging an entirely new religion.

Hermann Detering, 1992, Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus?: Die Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik. German minister in the Dutch radical tradition.

Gary Courtney, 1992, 2004 Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! The Passion is essentially Caesar's fate in Judaic disguise, grafted onto the dying/resurrcting cult of Attis. Jewish fans of Caesar assimilated the sacrificed 'saviour of mankind' into the 'Suffering Servant' of Isaiah.

Michael Kalopoulos, 1995, The Great Lie. Greek historian finds strikingly similar parallels between biblical texts and Greek mythology. He exposes the cunning, deceitful and authoritarian nature of religion.

Gerd Lüdemann, 1998, The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did. 2002, Paul: The Founder of Christianity. 2004, The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. After 25 years of study German professor concluded Paul, not Jesus, started Christianity. Lüdemann was expelled from the theology faculty at the University of Göttingen for daring to say that the Resurrection was "a pious self-deception." So much for academic freedom.

Alvar Ellegard, 1999, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ. Christianity seen as emerging from the Essene Church of God with the Jesus prototype the Teacher of Righteousness.

D. Murdock (aka 'Acharya S') 1999, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. 2004, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. Adds a astro-theological dimension to christ-myth demolition. Murdock identifies JC as a composite deity used to unify the Roman Empire. She also exhibits worrying aberrations for serious scholars.

Earl Doherty, 1999, The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Powerful statement of how Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect – no Jesus required!.

Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, 1999, The Jesus Mysteries. 2001, Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians. Examines the close relationship between the Jesus Story and that of Osiris-Dionysus. Jesus and Mary Magdalene mythic figures based on the Pagan Godman and Goddess.

Harold Liedner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Anachronisms and geographic errors of the gospels denounced. Christianity one of history's most effective frauds.

Robert Price, 2000, Deconstructing Jesus. 2003 Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? Ex-minister and accredited scholar shows Jesus to be a fictional amalgam of several 1st century prophets, mystery cult redeemers and gnostic 'aions'.

Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness. A psychotherapist take on the godman.

Michael Hoffman, 2000,Judaism's Strange Gods. Historian and theorist of "ego death" who jettisoned an historical Jesus.

Burton Mack, 2001,The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making.

Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud!

Frank R. Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources. No evidence in Jewish sources for the phantom messiah.

Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Canadian New Testament scholar and ex-Anglican priest re-states the ideas of Kuhn, Higgins and Massey. Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt.

Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Another take on the Josephus-Gospel similarities. Atwill argues that the 1st century conquerors of Judaea, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, used Hellenized Jews to manufacture the "Christian" texts in order to establish a peaceful alternative to militant Judaism. Jesus was Titus Flavius? I don't think so.


Iasion

 

[SnakeLord]

I guess his version didn't take. He wasn't the first either. The pharisees were the first to call Jesus a liar as recorded in the bible.

So Woody, what you're openly saying is that "witnesses" called jesus a liar? You have expressed to me before the importance of witnesses and yet these ones are discarded like wrapping paper and for what? Your emotional feeling on the matter..

 

[rjr6]

rjr6:



Says who exactly?

Jesus is depicted coming from a modest family and living a modest life. This is one aspect of his existence, not the only one, of course.

My statement reflected on the problems of using one source to validate itself and to take everything as true from that one source because that one source says it's true - and to that you come along and tell me he was a carpenter? I don't get it.

I was speaking to the fact that there isn't going to be alot of 'historical documents' from 2000 yrs ago about the birth of a modest man. From your text you are pointing to uncorroborated claims of his existence, and I am pointing out that ----one aspect---- of him is of a modest man.

"Modest people"? The very first biblical mention of him is him being born to a virgin woman impregnated by god. None of that could lead us to the conclusion that jesus would belong in the category of "modest people" - whether this demi god took the role of carpenter, rabbi or Sky TV installation man. Further to which, it evades the point which is that just because this book says he was a carpenter, a son of god, a god himself, a miracle maker or anything else is not justification to say that the story is true in any way whatsoever. It cannot be considered an 'historical account'.

My argument for the veracity of Jesus as depicted in the Bible is not the point of my post. My point is people discredit his existence for reasons that to me are putting the carriage before the horse. Jesus was not recognized for who he was, except by some, until after his death. Now, 2000yrs later when his existence is worshipped and documented as best it can be, people look at Jesus for what he became to be known as and then say where's the proof of this existence? There is little because it was not recognized but by few.

A compilation of stories, yes.

Interpretation is the key. as to whether we are going to find the pen that Mark used, I doubt it.

But to ascertain truth you cannot rely upon one story and consider it true because it says it is.

No you can't. This is an excellent point.

Maybe you misunderstood the statement of mine that you quoted. Here it is again:

"And there are far more times when these people must be questioned for giving over all reason for the sake of a story written by person or persons that you have never met, have no knowledge of about stories that you cannot in any way support, substantiate or corroborate - and your only claim comes from the basis that this one source says this, that and this. We know this must be true because this says so which is shown to be true because the next page says it is. It is ludicrous."

In there you'll find I dont mention anything about historical inconsistencies. What I was getting at is that any person with the ability to reason must understand that you cannot accept a story as true on the basis that it says it is. You cannot use one page of that story to validate another page.

I thought you meant that by your research you discovered Jesus didn't exist and my only point is that when he did (exist), he wasn't recognized as he is today, so info will be sketchy, IMO.

Not that I ever used that 'line of reasoning' but hey, what can ya do..

Well, this will sound uneducated unfortunately, and maybe it is, but anyway here goes. If you disect any 'reality' enough you come done to having to 'accept' certain truths without knowledge of them. and then you base your next assumption off of that.

 

[rjr6]

Greetings,



Well, I explained in some detail above.

]
No, there was no conspiracy



Iesous Christos developed from earlier ideas into a spiritual entity in Paul's mind - the son-of-god - a higher being.

That higher being somehow also ensouls us.

Christ = soul
cross = body
crucify = incarnate physically
raise = to rise above the physical (OOBE or death)

Then,
the author of Mark took Paul's ideas and expanded it into a story of how an enlightened man might be - Jesus Christ.

G.Mark is an amazing work of religious literature - it combines the spiritual themes of the day into a grand new myth.

It was so influential that it was copied and expanded.

Finally, a good century after the alleged events - when the Temple was long destroyed, the Jews dispersed and/or killed, Jerusalem razed and Judea erased from the map.

THEN - people started mistakenly believing Jesus was historical. (Some may have realised he was not but kept quiet for political reasons.)

The argument raged through the 2nd century.

Finally, the literalists won, and burned the books of their opponents.

From that time, only the literalist view was allowed. For over a millenia everyone HAD to believe in Jesus on risk of death - no surprise they (mostly) all did.




What does that mean?


Iasion

You say Jesus did not exist as a man. You also said their is/was a sect of christianity that did not believe in Jesus, which I don't understand as that defines a christian (belief in christ). In one of your links and at one point the author describes God as a platonist, which makes no sense. Isn't God the originator of all things regardless of religion?

But regardless of my misunderstandings, I was wondering, because you do not outrightly deny the importance of Jesus, other than to deny the God as human aspect, which could be argued as the most important aspect, is it your ascertion that Jesus is divinely inspired? We agree there is no conspiracy, so what is going on? Are you saying Christians are misinterpreting Jesus, or that the entire idea should be thrown out?


From your posts, you don't seem to bash on Jesus or his teachings, you seem to be saying that biblically he is being misrepresented. Or is this wrong?

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

You say Jesus did not exist as a man.

Correct.

The early Christians show no knowledge of any historical Jesus if Nazareth.
There is no evidence anywhere for any historical human Jesus - even where there SHOULD be :
http://qdj.50megs.com/EarlyWriters.html

You also said their is/was a sect of christianity that did not believe in Jesus, which I don't understand as that defines a christian (belief in christ).

There is a big difference between :
* a historical human Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ
and
* Iesous Christos, the son-of-God, a spiritual entity

Some early Christians NOT believe in Jesus of Nazareth, and leave him out of their books entirely.

Some Christians talk of the Logos, the son-of-God.

Some Christians talk of Jesus being a phantasm or illusion.

Some Christians explain that the meaning of "Christian" is that they have all been Christened with holy oil - no mention of Christ.

There was no defining characteristic of being a Christian in those days - there were all sorts of widely varying beliefs.

Eventually - adherents to ONE set of beliefs won, and suppressed all the others.

In one of your links and at one point the author describes God as a platonist, which makes no sense. Isn't God the originator of all things regardless of religion?

I have nothing to say about God.

But regardless of my misunderstandings, I was wondering, because you do not outrightly deny the importance of Jesus, other than to deny the God as human aspect, which could be argued as the most important aspect, is it your ascertion that Jesus is divinely inspired?

We are discussing the history of Christianity, not my beliefs. My argument is that there never was any historical Jesus at all.

As to whether this spiritual being Iesous Christos really is like Paul says - who knows

We agree there is no conspiracy, so what is going on? Are you saying Christians are misinterpreting Jesus, or that the entire idea should be thrown out?

I am saying there never was any historical Jesus of Nazareth. There was no conspiracy - just a religious myth, a powerful meme which some people later took as history.

Essentially a mistake - with some politics thrown in.

From your posts, you don't seem to bash on Jesus or his teachings, you seem to be saying that biblically he is being misrepresented. Or is this wrong?

Teachings?
Jesus gave no teachings.
Jesus never existed in history.

Have a look at the earliest writings - Paul and the epistles.

There is no teachings from Jesus in there - Paul even says he "doesn't know how to pray".

Pardon?
Didn't Jesus teach them the Lord's Prayer?

Not according to Christian history - the Lord's Prayer doesn't turn up in Christian writings until long afterwards - and then in different versions.

Have a look at Earl's ssilences in Paul :
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silintro.htm

See?
Nothing came from any historical Jesus.
There is no evidence anywhere of any historical Jesus.

There was no historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Iesous Christos was a spiritual idea in the mind of men.


Iasion

Greetings,

Jesus is depicted coming from a modest family and living a modest life. This is one aspect of his existence, not the only one, of course.

Jesus is also depicted as a divine miracle worker who created all the world. But somehow, no-one in history noticed Jesus at all.

If he was a divine miracle worker, he would have left a HUGE impact in history - but he was completely un-noticed.

If any Jesus existed - he was LESS important, LESS known, LESS significant than the many tiny nobodies who WERE mentioned.

I was speaking to the fact that there isn't going to be alot of 'historical documents' from 2000 yrs ago about the birth of a modest man. From your text you are pointing to uncorroborated claims of his existence, and I am pointing out that ----one aspect---- of him is of a modest man.

We have a LARGE collection of books from that very period, from people who allegedly knew Jesus, from people who had the greatest possible interest in Jesus -

Paul and the early epistle writers.

We would expect that these writings would be chock-a-block full of personal details about Jesus and his life and actions.

Where else would these details become known from?

Who could Christians turn to to tell them about the life of Jesus?

Why,
Paul and the early Christians such as James his BROTHER and Peter the very founder of the church, allegedly.

But,
what do we find?

Paul and James and John and Jude and Peter tell us NOTHING about any historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Nothing.

Just spiritual formulae and vague preaching "through Christ" etc.

My argument for the veracity of Jesus as depicted in the Bible is not the point of my post. My point is people discredit his existence for reasons that to me are putting the carriage before the horse. Jesus was not recognized for who he was, except by some, until after his death.

The early Christians didn't.
Neither Paul, James, Peter nor John mention anything about the empty tomb, the trial, the miracles !

Have a read of James - allegedly from Jesus' BROTHER - see what he says about the earthly life of Jesus.

The central event in Christianity is the EMPTY TOMB.

But,
no Christian shows ANY KNOWLEDGE of the empty tomb until about the year 130 or so when it turns up in weird symbolism in the Shepherd of Hermas, a mysterious book which was considered part of the early Bible by some, but later dropped.

Why is that?

Why did no Christian mention the empty tomb, or any other historical detail of the Gospel story, until AFTER the Gospels had become widely know?

Hmm?

There can only be one reasons - the early Christians had never even HEARD of any historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, 2000yrs later when his existence is worshipped and documented as best it can be,

There is no evidence for Jesus.
His existence is not documented.
It is merely speculated, believed.


Iasion

 

[SnakeLord]

Jesus is depicted coming from a modest family and living a modest life. This is one aspect of his existence, not the only one, of course.

By comparison Harry Potter is depicted as coming from a modest family and living a modest life. This is one aspect of his existence - not the only one of course.

Pretty much all 'superheroes', (I use the term loosely), have this modest alter ego. Superman - Clark Kent, Spiderman - Peter Parker, jesus - some modest carpenter. The only point here is that because a book says something doesn't mean it's all true. To quote what I said earlier, (to which you told me jesus was a carpenter for some reason)

"My statement reflected on the problems of using one source to validate itself and to take everything as true from that one source because that one source says it's true "

You then use that one source to say what jesus was and consider it 'historical' without just cause. It's fallacious.

I was speaking to the fact that there isn't going to be alot of 'historical documents' from 2000 yrs ago about the birth of a modest man. From your text you are pointing to uncorroborated claims of his existence, and I am pointing out that ----one aspect---- of him is of a modest man.

If you knew what my post was about why tell me the story also claims he's a carpenter? It's not relevant.

My argument for the veracity of Jesus as depicted in the Bible is not the point of my post. My point is people discredit his existence for reasons that to me are putting the carriage before the horse. Jesus was not recognized for who he was, except by some, until after his death. Now, 2000yrs later when his existence is worshipped and documented as best it can be, people look at Jesus for what he became to be known as and then say where's the proof of this existence? There is little because it was not recognized but by few.

The point of mine was to say you can't use one source and consider it valid because it says it is - and that was what I thought you were responding to but it seems you have dragged this elsewhere. Nevermind though.. Now, whether his magical powers became known a gazillion years after his supposed death or not doesn't change the issue concerning the need for evidence. I assume that you're trying to tell me that there was no magic in the story, this was just a simple carpenter - and because of that the story is true because nobody would bother making up a story about someone so small and 'modest'. I suppose we need to establish the exact order of written claims. Was he not born a god/son of until after the story of a carpenter had been written? I dunno.. But even then it isn't really evidence. Just for the sake of discussion we could say it is, it doesn't matter.. What we'd end up with is a carpenter, but surely the focus should be more on evidence for the 'jesus' that people claim existed, (the magical power one)? In honesty if I came to this forum and everyone was sitting here saying

"There was once a carpenter called jesus", and that was the full length of their claims I wouldn't really consider it worth disputing. It's when people make vast unsupported claims such as they do that I start questioning.

No you can't. This is an excellent point.

Thank you. It was the original point of my post.

Anyway it's lovely outside today.. gonna go take some pictures. Enjoy

 

[Carcano]

Then, in mid 2nd century the Gospels appear, and after that every Christian writer repeats endless details.

That's the issue - the EARLIEST Christians - Paul, James, etc, should know the MOST about Jesus. THEY should be the source for the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

But they say NOTHING about any such historical figure - the people who should have known Jesus don't even mention his life details.

Why do you want to exclude the writings of Paul?
He is the EARLIEST writer.
He should know the MOST about Jesus.

Paul mentions NOTHING clearly about the life of Jesus - no Mary, no birth stories, no healings, no miracles, no speeches, no TRIAL ! no empty tomb !!

It makes sense that Paul wouldnt have any stories about the life of Jesus as a man...he was not a witness to any of it. He never met Jesus and derived his 'authority' solely on his spiritual visions. He only wrote about the Heavenly Jesus because thats all he knew...or thought he knew.

That Jesus lived as a man was something he took for granted and affirmed, but could not comment on from direct personal experience.

He started writing around about CE:50 and was beheaded in Rome in CE:68. Two years later Israel was flattened by the Romans, and what Jews that survived were dispersed.

Mark (CE:60-70s) is the only gospel I take seriously as possibly having some truth to it. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, embellished with other material. And it makes sense that Mark would appear when it did, as the Christian community in Israel was being dismantled by war and internal strife.

 

[Woody]

So Woody, what you're openly saying is that "witnesses" called jesus a liar? You have expressed to me before the importance of witnesses and yet these ones are discarded like wrapping paper and for what? Your emotional feeling on the matter..

Stay calm Snakelord -- no need to get exited. It's just bible that's all. There were plenty of examples coming from the pharisees.

They didn't crucify Jesus for "telling the truth" about being the Son of God.

Now can you tell me the name of the person that supposedly started the Jesus myth? I could use a good chuckle.

No, not Justin Martyr.
I mistyped for Julian, whoops.

Anyway,
people die for false beliefs all the time -

The Heaven's Gate cult did.
Therefore according to your argument, they were right - there was a spaceship waiting to collect their souls hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet.

Suicide bombers die for their beliefs.
So what?

There is one truth we know for certain -- all these examples have a REAL person telling them they are prophets of God, and the followers believe that leader, whether it's Mohammed, Jim Jones, whatever. REAL leaders with REAL names. So tell, me Iason, who was coaching the Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs? Surely he or she must have a name. Perhaps the name is Jesus Christ, no?

There is no evidence for Jesus.
His existence is not documented.
It is merely speculated, believed.


Iasion

So a "fictitious event" influenced modern history like perhaps no other real event in history. We set our calendar by it, it was the basis for european history, and we still have it with us today -- still influencing people by the the hundereds of millions. Your claim is historically hilarious, Iason. In history, the veracity of an event is measured by the change it produces on humanity in the generations that follow the event. This is a foundational axiom for any intelligent study of history.

In logic it's called cause and effect. It is illogical to presume "nothing" can cause "something". You disagree with historical scholars, many of whom are secular. It appears unlearned, as well as illogical, and it also goes against the foundations of historicity, foundations that are based on cause and effect.

You don't have a credible cause for a "Jesus Myth", none that a historian would accept anyway. It looks unlearned, and downright kookie. You can quibble about the miracles and magic if you want, but the historical argument against the existance of a prophet named Jesus is pretty far out there.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768).1778, On the Intention of Jesus and His Teaching. Enlightenment thinker and professor of Oriental languages at the Hamburg Gymnasium, his extensive writings–published after his death–rejected 'revealed religion' and argued for a naturalistic deism. Reimarus charged the gospel writers with conscious fraud and innumerable contradictions.

Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) (1694-1778) The most influential figure of the Enlightenment was educated at a Jesuit college yet concluded, "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world ... The true God cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on a gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough." Imprisoned, exiled, his works banned and burned, Voltaire's great popularity in revolutionary France assured him a final resting place in the Pantheon in Paris. Religious extremists stole his remains and dumped them in a garbage heap.

Charles François Dupuis, 1794, Origine de tous les Cultes ou La Religion universelle. Astral-mythical interpretation of Christianity (and all religion). “A great error is more easily propagated, than a great truth, because it is easier to believe, than to reason, and because people prefer the marvels of romances to the simplicity of history.” Dupuis destroyed most of his own work because of the violent reaction it provoked.

Count Volney, 1787, Les Ruines; ou, Méditation sur les révolutions des empires (Ruins of Empires). Napoleonic investigator saw for himself evidence of Egyptian precursors of Christianity.

Edward Evanson, 1792, The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence of their Respective Authenticity. English rationalist challenged apostolic authorship of the 4th Gospel and denounced several Pauline epistles as spurious.

Thomas Paine, 1795, The Age of Reason. Pamphleteer who made the first call for American independence (Common Sense, 1776; Rights of Man, 1791) Paine poured savage ridicule on the contradictions and atrocities of the Bible. Like many American revolutionaries Paine was a deist:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."–The Age of Reason.

Robert Taylor, 1828, Syntagma Of The Evidences Of The Christian Religion; 1829, Diegesis. Taylor was imprisoned for declaring mythical origins for Christianity. "The earliest Christians meant the words to be nothing more than a personification of the principle of reason, of goodness, or that principle, be it what it may, which may most benefit mankind in the passage through life.”

Godfrey Higgins, 1836, Anacalypsis – An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis; or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions. English pioneer of archaeology and freemason.

Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics. 1877, Christus und die Caesaren. Der Hervorgang des Christentums aus dem romischen Griechentum. The original iconoclast. Bauer contested the authenticity of all the Pauline epistles (in which he saw the influence of Stoic thinkers like Seneca) and Philo's role in emergent Christianity. Bauer rejected the historicity of Jesus himself. "Everything that is known of Jesus belongs to the world of imagination." As a result in 1842 Bauer was ridiculed and removed from his professorship of New Testament theology at Tübingen.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841, Essays. One time Trinitarian Christian and former Unitarian minister held Jesus to be a "true prophet" but that organised Christianity was an "eastern monarchy".

"Our Sunday-schools, and churches, and pauper-societies are yokes to the neck."

Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled. “Reigning opinion, however ill-founded and absurd, is always queen of the nations.”

Ferdinand Christian Baur, 1845 Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. German scholar who identified as "inauthentic" not only the pastoral epistles, but also Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon and Philippians (leaving only the four main Pauline epistles regarded as genuine). Baur was the founder of the so-called "Tübingen School."

David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Lutheran vicar-turned-scholar skilfully exposed gospel miracles as myth and in the process reduced Jesus to a man. It cost him his career.

Ernest Renan, 1863, Das Leben Jesu. Trained as a Catholic priest, Renan wrote a romanticised biography of the godman which was influenced by the German critics. It cost him his job.

Robert Ingersoll, 1872, The Gods. Illinois orator extraordinaire, his speeches savaged the Christian religion. "It has always seemed to me that a being coming from another world, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should at least have verified that message by his own signature. Is it not wonderful that not one word was written by Christ?"

Allard Pierson, 1879, De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten. Theologian, art and literature historian who identified The Sermon on the Mount as a collection of aphorisms from Jewish Wisdom literature.The publication of Pierson's Bergrede was the beginning of Dutch Radical Criticism. Not just the authenticity of all the Pauline epistles but the historical existence of Jesus himself was called into question.

Bronson C. Keeler, 1881, A Short History of the Bible. A classic exposé of Christian fraud.

Abraham Dirk Loman, 1882"Quaestiones Paulinae," in Theologisch Tijdschrift. Professor of theology at Amsterdam who said all the epistles date from the 2nd century. Loman explained Christianity as a fusion of Jewish and Roman-Hellenic thinking. When he went blind Loman said his blindness gave him insight into the dark history of the church!

Thomas William Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions. Outdated but a classic revelation of pagan antecedents of biblical myths and miracles.

Samuel Adrianus Naber, 1886, Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt. Classicist who saw Greek myths hidden within Christian scripture.

Gerald Massey, 1886,Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ. 1907Ancient Egypt-The Light of the World. Another classic from an early nemesis of the priesthood.

Edwin Johnson, 1887, Antiqua mater. A Study of Christian Origins. English radical theologian identified the early Christians as the Chrestiani, followers of a good (Chrestus) God who had expropriating the myth of Dionysos Eleutherios ("Dionysos the Emancipator"), to produce a self-sacrificing Godman. Denounced the twelve apostles as complete fabrication.

Rudolf Steck, 1888, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den Paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Radical Swiss scholar branded all the Pauline epistles as fakes.

Franz Hartman, 1889, The Life of Johoshua: The Prophet of Nazareth.

Willem Christiaan van Manen, 1896, Paulus. Professor at Leiden and most famous of the Dutch Radicals, a churchman who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. After resisting the argument for many years van Manen concluded none of the Pauline epistles were genuine and that Acts was dependent on the works of Josephus.

Joseph McCabe, 1897, Why I Left the Church. 1907, The Bible in Europe: an Inquiry into the Contribution of the Christian Religion to Civilization. 1914, The Sources of the Morality of the Gospels. Franciscan monk-turned-evangelical atheist. McCabe, a prolific writer, shredded many parts of the Christ legend–"There is no "figure of Jesus" in the Gospels. There are a dozen figures"–but he continued to allow the possibility for an historical founder, nonetheless.

Albert Schweitzer.1901, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. 1906, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The famous German theologian and missionary (35 years in the Cameroons) ridiculed the humanitarian Jesus of the liberals and at the same time had the courage to recognize the work of the Dutch Radicals. His own pessimistic conclusion was that the superhero had been an apocalyptic fanatic and that Jesus died a disappointed man. Famously said those looking for an historical Jesus merely found a reflection of themselves.

Wilhelm Wrede, 1901, The Messianic Secret. Wrede demonstrated how, in Mark’s gospel, a false history was shaped by early Christian belief.

George Robert Stowe Mead, 1903Did Jesus Live 100 BC? A discussion of the Jewish Jeschu stories which moves Jesus back to an earlier time.

Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity. Declared Jesus a myth.

William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus. 1911Die urchristliche Lehre des reingöttlichen Jesus. Argues for origins in a pre-Christian Jesus cult on the island of Cyprus.

Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity. Another radical German scholar who identified Christianity as a psychosis. Christ was essentially the transcendental principle of the Christian community which aimed at apocalyptic social reform.

Gerardus Bolland, 1907, De Evangelische Jozua. Philosopher at Leiden identified the origin of Christianity in an earlier Jewish Gnosticism. The New Testament superstar is the Old Testament 'son of Nun', the follower renamed Jesus by Moses. The virgin is nothing but a symbol for the people of Israel. From Alexandria the "Netzerim" took their gospel to Palestine.


In 1907 Pope Pius X condemned the Modernists who were "working within the framework of the Church". An anti-Modernist oath was introduced in 1910.

Prosper Alfaric (1886-1955) French Professor of Theology, shaken by the stance of Pius X, renounced his faith and left the church in 1909 to work for the cause of rationalism.

Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus? Is He a Myth? Erstwhile Presbyterian Minister who saw through the fabrication.

Karl Kautsky, 1909, The Foundations of Christianity. Early socialist interpreted Christianity in terms of class struggle.

Arthur Drews, 1910, Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth). 1910, Die Petruslegende (The Legend of St Peter). 1924Die Entstehung des Christentums aus dem Gnostizismus (The Emergence of Christianity from Gnosticism). Eminent philosopher was Germany's greatest exponent of the contention that Christ is a myth. The gospels historized a pre-existing mystical Jesus whose character was drawn from the prophets and Jewish wisdom literature. The Passion was to be found in the speculations of Plato.

John E. Remsburg, 1909, The Christ: A critical review and analysis of the evidences of His existence. Gospels rife with contradictions. Doubtful that Jesus existed and a supernatural Christ is certainly Christian dogma.

John Robertson, 1910, Christianity and Mythology. 1911, Pagan Christs. Studies in Comparative Hierology. 1917The Jesus Problem. Robertson drew attention to the universality of many elements of the Jesus' storyline and to pre-Christian crucifixion rituals in the ancient world. Identified the original Jesus/Joshua with an ancient Ephraimite deity in the form of a lamb.

Alexander Hislop, 1916, The Two Babylons. Exhaustive exposure of the pagan rituals and paraphernalia of Roman Catholicism.

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, 1912, Radical Views about the New Testament. 1918, Voorchristelijk Christendom. De vorbereiding van het Evangelie in de Hellenistische wereld. Theologian and last of the Dutch radicals to hold a university professorship.

Edward Carpenter, 1920, Pagan and Christian Creeds. Elaborated the pagan origins of Christianity.

Rudolf Bultmann, 1921, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 1941, Neues Testament und Mythologie. Lutheran theologian and professor at Marburg University Bultman was the exponent of 'form criticism' and did much to demythologise the gospels. He identified the narratives of Jesus as theology served up in the language of myth. Bultmann observed that the New Testament was not the story of Jesus but a record of early Christian belief. He argued that the search for an historical Jesus was fruit-less: "We can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus." (Jesus and the Word, Cool

James Frazer, 1922, The Golden Bough. Anthropological interpretation of man's progress from magic, through religion to science. Christianity a cultural phenomenon.

P. L. Couchoud, 1924, Le mystère de Jesus.1939, The Creation of Christ. Couchoud espoused an historical Peter rather than an historical Jesus and argued that the Passion was modelled on the death of Stephen.

Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth. Identified the Revelation of St John as the earliest part of the New Testament.

Henri Delafosse, 1927, Les Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche. 1928, "Les e'crits de Saint Paul," in Christianisme. Epistles of Ignatius denounced as late forgeries.

Joseph Wheless, 1926, Is It God's Word? An Exposition of the Fables and Mythology of the Bible and the Fallacies of Theology. 1930, Forgery in Christianity. American attorney, raised in the Bible Belt, shredded the biblical fantasy.

L. Gordon Rylands, 1927, The Evolution of Christianity. 1935Did Jesus Ever Live?

Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus.

John J. Jackson, 1938, Christianity Before Christ, Drew attention to the Egyptian precedents of Christian belief.

Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory? 1970, Rebirth for Christianity. Jesus was never a person, but a symbol of the divine soul in every human being.

Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man or Myth? Mythical nature of Jesus and a summary of the ongoing debate between mythicists and historicizers. Mythic-only position is continuous tradition, not novel. Pagan origins of Christ.

Georges Las Vergnas, 1956, Pourquoi j'ai quitté l'Eglise romaine Besançon.

Georges Ory, 1961, An Analysis of Christian Origins.

Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ.

John Allegro, 1970, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. 1979, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. Jesus was nothing other than a magic mushroom and his life an allegorical interpretation of a drug-induced state. Not jail for Allegro – but professional ruin.

George Albert Wells, 1975, Did Jesus Exist? 1988, The Historical Evidence for Jesus. 1996, The Jesus Legend. 1998, Jesus Myth. 2004, Can We Trust the New Testament? Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony. Christianity a growth from Jewish Wisdom literature. Later books concede possible influence of a real preacher.

Max Rieser, 1979, The True Founder of Christianity and the Hellenistic Philosophy. Christianity started by Jews of the Diaspora and then retroactively set in pre-70 Palestine. Christianity arrived last, not first, in Palestine – that's why Christian archeological finds appear in Rome but not in Judea until the 4th century.

Abelard Reuchlin, 1979, The True Authorship of the New Testament. Conspiracy theory par excellence: Roman aristocrat Arius Calpurnius Piso (aka "Flavius Josephus") conspired to gain control of the Roman Empire by forging an entirely new religion.

Hermann Detering, 1992, Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus?: Die Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik. German minister in the Dutch radical tradition.

Gary Courtney, 1992, 2004 Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! The Passion is essentially Caesar's fate in Judaic disguise, grafted onto the dying/resurrcting cult of Attis. Jewish fans of Caesar assimilated the sacrificed 'saviour of mankind' into the 'Suffering Servant' of Isaiah.

Michael Kalopoulos, 1995, The Great Lie. Greek historian finds strikingly similar parallels between biblical texts and Greek mythology. He exposes the cunning, deceitful and authoritarian nature of religion.

Gerd Lüdemann, 1998, The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did. 2002, Paul: The Founder of Christianity. 2004, The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. After 25 years of study German professor concluded Paul, not Jesus, started Christianity. Lüdemann was expelled from the theology faculty at the University of Göttingen for daring to say that the Resurrection was "a pious self-deception." So much for academic freedom.

Alvar Ellegard, 1999, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ. Christianity seen as emerging from the Essene Church of God with the Jesus prototype the Teacher of Righteousness.

D. Murdock (aka 'Acharya S') 1999, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. 2004, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. Adds a astro-theological dimension to christ-myth demolition. Murdock identifies JC as a composite deity used to unify the Roman Empire. She also exhibits worrying aberrations for serious scholars.

Earl Doherty, 1999, The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Powerful statement of how Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect–no Jesus required!.

Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, 1999, The Jesus Mysteries. 2001Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians. Examines the close relationship between the Jesus Story and that of Osiris-Dionysus. Jesus and Mary Magdalene mythic figures based on the Pagan Godman and Goddess.

Harold Liedner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Anachronisms and geographic errors of the gospels denounced. Christianity one of history's most effective frauds.

Robert Price, 2000, Deconstructing Jesus. 2003 Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? Ex-minister and accredited scholar shows Jesus to be a fictional amalgam of several 1st century prophets, mystery cult redeemers and gnostic 'aions'.

Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness. A psychotherapist take on the godman.

Michael Hoffman, 2000
Judaism's Strange Gods. Historian and theorist of "ego death" who jettisoned an historical Jesus.

Burton Mack, 2001,The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making.

Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud!

Frank R. Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources. No evidence in Jewish sources for the phantom messiah.

Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Canadian New Testament scholar and ex-Anglican priest re-states the ideas of Kuhn, Higgins and Massey. Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt.

Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Another take on the Josephus-Gospel similarities. Atwill argues that the 1st century conquerors of Judaea, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, used Hellenized Jews to manufacture the "Christian" texts in order to establish a peaceful alternative to militant Judaism. Jesus was Titus Flavius? I don't think so.

*************
M*W: What an impressive bibliography! I have cited references from many of the later works you've listed. Many of the earlier works you've listed, I will try to locate for my own library.

It only makes sense that even from the beginning, and possibly before, christianity evolved, scholars, historians, archeologists, political figures, and some former religious adherents, have refuted literally every aspect of christianity. Atheists and non-christians are not a new breed at all.

The list you've provided offers an immeasurable amount of well-researched knowledge, but it saddens me that christians will refute this knowledge without ever having read anything contrary to their mindless programming. But, then again, that's exactly what they've been brainwashed to do--to avoid anything contrary to what they've been programmed to believe. I suspect one of the hardest things a christian could do is to use their own mind to think and read freely without the overwhelming guilt their religion has over them.

As a Roman Catholic, I remember we were strongly encouraged not to read anything that did not have the Nil Obistat (sp) or the Imprimatur (sp) under the front cover. Being the good Catholic that I was, I checked for this sanction, so it was my own failure moreso than the Church's authority. It takes two when it comes to mind control--the perpetrator and the victim. So, the more I read, the more I questioned.

I suspect that christians as a general rule don't read much other than their bible. That's why their minds are narrowed beyond reason. Perhaps, they like the control. Under control, they don't have to accept responsibility for their own actions (or failure to learn). That has become very obvious about the christians on this forum. They refute without reading. They're like zombies just doing what they are told to do. They've become comfortable wallowing in their own ignorance. They have no desire to learn anything new, or much less, believe anything outside of their own religious conditioning.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Now can you tell me the name of the person that supposedly started the Jesus myth? I could use a good chuckle.

I told you.
Paul, and the author of Mark, and later Christians.
You ignored it all.

There is one truth we know for certain -- all these examples have a REAL person telling them they are prophets of God, and the followers believe that leader, whether it's Mohammed, Jim Jones, whatever. REAL leaders with REAL names. So tell, me Iason, who was coaching the Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs? Surely he or she must have a name. Perhaps the name is Jesus Christ, no?

No.
Just other Christians.

No person ever met any Jesus.
No records exist for any Jesus.

You ignored all that.

So a "fictitious event" influenced modern history like perhaps no other real event in history.

The "event" had NO INFLUENCE what-so-ever !

No-one recorded the events.
No historian mentions the events.

Only later BELIEF had an influence.
You ignored all that.

We set our calendar by it,

We call our days after Gods - e.g. Thursday after the God Thor - therefore, according to your argument, Thor is real.

We name our months after Gods - such as June after Juno - therefore, according to your argument, Juno is real.

What nonsense.

it was the basis for european history, and we still have it with us today -- still influencing people by the the hundereds of millions.

Just like Osiris, Krishna etc. - so what?

Your claim is historically hilarious, Iason.

In fact, I provided evidence for my claim.
You ignored the evidence.

I repeatedly showed your arguments were false.
You ignored all that.

Do you think the fact you get my name wrong shows you are a careful researcher?

Hmmm?

In history, the veracity of an event is measured by the change it produces on humanity in the generations that follow the event. [/I] This is a foundational axiom for any intelligent study of history.

Indeed.
And Jesus had NO effect on his times at all.

NO-ONE mentioned Jesus when he was allegedly alive.
The life of Jesus produced NO CHANGE at all in anyone.

But much later - BELIEF in Jesus caused huge change.
So what?

You don't have a credible cause for a "Jesus Myth",

I presented a credible case, with evidence.
You ignored it.

none that a historian would accept anyway.

False.
I showed a lengthy list of historians who did !
You ignored it as usual.

It looks unlearned, and downright kookie. You can quibble about the miracles and magic if you want, but the historical argument against the existance of a prophet named Jesus is pretty far out there.

But yet, all you can do is preach and insult?
But you cannot come up with any evidence?

Nor answer my evidence?
Just preach and insult - the only skills an apologist has.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

It makes sense that Paul wouldnt have any stories about the life of Jesus as a man...he was not a witness to any of it.

It makes no sense at all.

Do Christians today tell stories about Jesus ?
Yes, all the time !
Did they witness Jesus?
No.
Does that stop them telling Jesus stories?
No.

So why would it stop Paul?

Paul was the CLOSEST in time to Jesus - it is obvious he should say the MOST about Jesus - but he says NOTHING.

What about James?
I see you conspicuously avoided that issue - what a surprise !

James was allegedly the BROTHER of Jesus - he should know the MOST POSSIBLE details about Jesus - but he says NOTHING.

Peter was allegedly the founder the church - he should know the many many details about Jesus - but he says NOTHING.

That's the point which you ignore, and will no doubt continue to ignore - that the earliest Christians knew NOTHING about any Jesus of Nazareth.

He never met Jesus and derived his 'authority' solely on his spiritual visions. He only wrote about the Heavenly Jesus because thats all he knew...or thought he knew.

Yup - visions.
He makes it clear he is just as much an apostle as Peter and the rest - he describes appearances of Jesus to Peter ands others and himself.

In other words - that's ALL IT EVER was - VISIONS.
It all started with spiritual visions.

No historical Jesus at all.

Mark (CE:60-70s)

Note that Carcano insists on the faithful date of G.Mark.
Scholars do not agree.
Typically G.Mark is dated to 65-80.
But faithful believers place it as early as possible.

is the only gospel I take seriously as possibly having some truth to it. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, embellished with other material.

G.Mark is an anonymous book, written probably in Rome, by someone who knew little about Judea.
No Christian knew anything about G.Mark until early-mid 2nd century.

G.Mark used the Tanakh as a source, embellished with other material - such as the popular empty tomb scene from novels of the period.


Expect Carcano to continue to ignore that point as well, and keep right on preaching.

And it makes sense that Mark would appear when it did, as the Christian community in Israel was being dismantled by war and internal strife.

Yes, the myth of G.Mark appeared in early-mid 2nd century when Israel was being finished off by the Romans.

Long after any alleged events.
Long after any possible witnesses were dead.


Iasion

 

[Carcano]

Paul was the CLOSEST in time to Jesus - it is obvious he should say the MOST about Jesus - but he says NOTHING.

He does affirm that Jesus existed as a man, but has no direct experience of it. He does have a great deal to say about Jesus as a pre-existant divine being, something he thought he knew a great deal about...through the miracle of mystical vision.